The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that a law firm’s contingency fee agreement was ambiguous because it failed to expressly state whether its fee would be calculated based on the gross proceeds from a settlement or on the net proceeds after litigation costs and medical expenses were deducted.
The court also said the firm failed to ensure that its client, who was Vietnamese-American and could not read English, understood the fee agreement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
